Internet Blacklist Bill

[Corny]

Not quite. What this bill does is to allow the DOJ to ask a judge for a court order in order to shut down a site that is engaging in pirating.

and how to you believe they can shut down a website that is "engaging in pirating"? they need control of the DNS system. which means exactly what i said before. it's a censorship infrastructure.

as for the court order .. did you just ignore the article that i posted earlier?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

and how to you believe they can shut down a website that is "engaging in pirating"? they need control of the DNS system. which means exactly what i said before. it's a censorship infrastructure.

The law will not prevent you downloading porn, looking up hate speech, or someone being a complete jerk, as long as you don't use copyrighted material outside of its legal parameters. In other words, not allowing you to download pirated porn or software does not equate to censorship, which seems to be the main thrust of the censorship argument.

Read: You have not defined PRECISELY how it is a "censorship infrastructure", and even your examples of the DMCA are purely conjecture with no basis is fact (if the DMCA were such a tool then the various cases associated with it would have gone the other way, most notably Lenz v. Universal Music Corp).

as for the court order .. did you just ignore the article that i posted earlier?

Neither of the articles you posted had anything to do with court orders. The first was about the RIAA requiring that they be able to inspect CD/DVD manufacturers (which is likely to go pretty much nowhere) and the second was about a Google exec who threatened to fight the PROTECT-IP; in neither were court orders mentioned. Would you care highlighting that for me...?

RG

 

[Corny]

^ the RIAA wants to inspect the CD/DVD manufacturers whenever they want. at the moment they need a court order for this. they are about to remove this. as they would remove the need for a court order to visit your personal home at any time - if they could. they start with this now. they will not stop at this, as we have seen from the past.

about the censorship infrastructure: to make "protect ip" technically feasible they need to control the DNS system. the DNS system as it is now, is decentralized. with the new law they would need to have a CENTRAL point, under the control of the government that is able to block certain domains. how is this NOT a structure that can be used for censorship? how is this NOT a structure that can be used to track every step that you do?

this is not about stopping piracy. this is about the tools that they use for it.

are you okay with people inspecting every piece of mail (electronic and normal) just to ensure that you don't pirate something? are you ok with people eavesdropping all of your phonecalls (skype/ip and normal) just to ensure that you do not do something illegal? it seems you are ready and willing to pay this price.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
This is akin to a law requiring everyone in a city to have a front door lock that can be opened with a single master key, and then copies of the master key are given to a batch of unelected bureaucrats.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

^ the RIAA wants to inspect the CD/DVD manufacturers whenever they want. at the moment they need a court order for this.

Now, if you could make the case that this even has a chance of passing, you would have a case. Also, I'm sort of interested that they can do anything with a court order; if that's the case, then why do they need legislation saying that they need one? Something is wrong with that line of reasoning...

how is this NOT a structure that can be used for censorship? how is this NOT a structure that can be used to track every step that you do?

Someone can already track every step that you do. It's not that hard. More to the point, however, is that's WAY beyond what the bill grants; it is only to block a DNS from being used in the US. It has no power beyond that.

No offense, but you're giving this bill a lot more power than it has.

are you okay with people inspecting every piece of mail (electronic and normal) just to ensure that you don't pirate something? are you ok with people eavesdropping all of your phonecalls (skype/ip and normal) just to ensure that you do not do something illegal? it seems you are ready and willing to pay this price.

No, I'm not. But I'm also not the one investing this bill with a lot more power than it has. It can only block a particular domain, and then only after the DOJ has both gotten a court order AND notified the person what is going on. It has no power to tap phones, watch screens, look inside mail (snail or electronic), or even take itself to the bathroom.

But if you can show me where, in the bill itself, it gains these powers, I'm more than willing to change my mind...

RG

 

[hotatlboi]

The law will not prevent you downloading porn, looking up hate speech, or someone being a complete jerk, as long as you don't use copyrighted material outside of its legal parameters. In other words, not allowing you to download pirated porn or software does not equate to censorship

It absolutely is censorship.

It is going to require search engines and blogs to remove links to sites that might contain anything infringing.

If there is a problem with an infringing site, the legal action should be against the site itself, not a wider effort to eliminate any knowledge that the site even existed. That is the same type of crap China does to shut down knowledge it doesn't like (i.e. Google cannot link to anything on Tiananmen square, etc.)

That's what this bill is, and it's repulsive.

Furthermore it's from the same Leahy/Hatch team which always proposes these kinds of absurdities. Those guys are whores for big media, so I pretty much know anything they propose on this subject is going to be garbage.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

^
This is akin to a law requiring everyone in a city to have a front door lock that can be opened with a single master key, and then copies of the master key are given to a batch of unelected bureaucrats.

Nope. This law, as proposed, is more akin to a boot you place on a car because the owner ran up a lot of parking ticket. The legislation doesn't ask for any special permissions, just that if you screw up you do something about it...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

It absolutely is censorship.

Specifics?

It is going to require search engines and blogs to remove links to sites that might contain anything infringing.

Yeah, except that search engines and most blogs are covered by Fair Use, as per case law. Those that wouldn't be covered are those that give you actual songs, etc.; in other words, they have to be violating copyright or anti-piracy law in order to even come under the auspices of this law. It will be interesting to see what happens with Youtube under the new law, but Youtibe has a number of precedents backing it.

If there is a problem with an infringing site, the legal action should be against the site itself, not a wider effort to eliminate any knowledge that the site even existed. That is the same type of crap China does to shut down knowledge it doesn't like (i.e. Google cannot link to anything on Tiananmen square, etc.)

Except that the injunction is only temporary. The site is given a chance to clean itself up before any further steps are made, and if it does so, no harm no foul.

That's what this bill is, and it's repulsive.

This bill has been seriously misrepresented. There are some issues, but it's because of its language, not due to censorship issues...

RG

 

[hotatlboi]

Yeah, except that search engines and most blogs are covered by Fair Use

You're referencing current law, not what this bill proposes.

Additionally, I don't think you really understand what you are saying.

Fair Use is a legal term for the rights to use a copyrighted work (or a limited portion of one) in certain scenarios.

When a search engine or blog links to a site, they are not using ANY portion of a copyrighted work. They are simply telling people where to find a performance of that work. That is what these assholes want to ban. Or more specifically, hand big media a ban hammer for.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

You're referencing current law, not what this bill proposes.

This bill does not, as far as I can tell, challenge or change current Fair Use law. It merely deals with piracy.

Additionally, I don't think you really understand what you are saying.

Specifics?

When a search engine or blog links to a site, they are not using ANY portion of a copyrighted work. They are simply telling people where to find a performance of that work. That is what these assholes want to ban. Or more specifically, hand big media a ban hammer for.

And here's where I ask if you've bothered reading the bill. Only the Attorney General can ask for the court order, and he has to be able to show what why he wants the court order. As current law is that search engines are essentially immune, there shouldn't be an issue.

RG

 

[Corny]

Someone can already track every step that you do. It's not that hard. More to the point, however, is that's WAY beyond what the bill grants; it is only to block a DNS from being used in the US. It has no power beyond that.

No offense, but you're giving this bill a lot more power than it has.

no offense, but it seems you have absolutely no clue of the underlying technology. you seem to be desperate to defend this for the sake of IP and meanwhile even with your choice of words you demonstrate that you have not even an idea how this works *today*. people like you are very dangerous in positions of power. sadly many politicians are exactly like you.

 

[andysayshi]

^ I must agree. Internet blacklisting is dangerous in ANY form. It's extreme naivety to believe that any such system can't be amended or extended to block far more than the targets it is first aimed at. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a short time, where the internet IS blacklisted, and it was pointless. It slowed the system to a crawl, and anybody who could afford it just used satellite internet. The result? Disenfranchised poor.

If we've learned anything from recent events in the Middle East, the internet can be an amazing conduit for freedom. Allowing restrictions to that freedom is endangering the free exchange of information.

In Australia, a recent proposed internet blacklist was met with staunch disapproval from almost every section of the community: ISPs, tech giants like Google and Microsoft, even community organisations like Family Planning. All of these organisations recognised the potential for future corruption that such a system allows.

Prohibition doesn't work. When you tell someone they can't do something, they just find other ways to do it. In technology, this is more true than over. technologies to circumvent a blacklist will no doubt proliferate much faster than government can block them.

Of course, this bill is being lobbied and bankrolled by big media companies. It's way overdue that media and software companies recognise that old sales structures are gone. The world has changed, and they must change with it. Micro payment systems are the way of the future. Look at Apple's iPhone app store - billions of dollars in business in just two years, to a market sector that didn't even exist three years ago.

I have hundreds of (legally acquired!) movies stored on hard drives at home, but if I could watch any movie any time for 99 cents, I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on hard drives. If I could download the latest episode of The Simpsons for 50 cents, within a few hours of its first broadcast, I wouldn't bother dicking around with bit torrent sites. For the music industry, the days of 1000% profit margins are gone. Music is too expensive at 99 cents per song - make it 25 cents and watch digital sales explode.

Piracy has always and WILL always exist, but it can be circumvented from the masses if a better, higher quality, reliable, economical alternative is available. Blacklisting will NOT work - pirates will get around it. And the negatives of such a system far outweigh any positives.

 

[Kulindahr]

Once the structure is there, once the capability is there, rules will be no barrier. All we have to do is picture, say, another Nixon: he wouldn't have to have his "plumbers" break into anyone's offices, they could just shut down web sites supporting opponents, then pretend ignorance.

As I said, it's like handing all the bureaucrats in the government a master key to all the houses in the community -- and not expecting that they will be misused.

It's how government power gets enlarged: they get a capability, then they push the envelope, stretching the law as far as they can, then whining about how many "criminals" are getting away because the powers don't go far enough -- and eventually, as with the travesty known as the "USA PATRIOT" Act, they get them.
Then the process starts over.

The time to stop them is at the start. The internet should be off-limits to all government everywhere, period -- no meddling.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

^ I must agree. Internet blacklisting is dangerous in ANY form.

This isn't blacklisting. Yeesh. Blacklisting is a form of censorship; it happens when the government punishes people for belonging to a particular group. This is: You are committing a crime, stop it! The government is not punishing you for your beliefs, but for the commitment of very specific crimes....

I have hundreds of (legally acquired!) movies stored on hard drives at home, but if I could watch any movie any time for 99 cents, I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on hard drives. If I could download the latest episode of The Simpsons for 50 cents, within a few hours of its first broadcast, I wouldn't bother dicking around with bit torrent sites. For the music industry, the days of 1000% profit margins are gone. Music is too expensive at 99 cents per song - make it 25 cents and watch digital sales explode.

Gee. If I combine Netflix+Hulu+Napster, even at the highest membership packages (for about $50/mo), I can get precisely that. You use Netflix for the movies, which allows a large number of streaming videos as well as many as 24 DVDs per month. Then Napster allows you all of the music you could ever want, as long as you remember to login ever couple of days. And then Hulu allows you all of the TV you could ever want (with some exceptions), and bonuses if you get Hulu+. Admittedly it's not permanent solution, and there are some issues (such as being limited to wherever there is wireless or cell phones), but, in general, I can get all of the movies I could ever want and all of the music I could ever want for less than a nickel per song or $.50 per movie.

Sorry, but in light of today's tech, the cost issue for anyone in so-called civilization doesn't hold water. Now, if we were talking areas with limited tech, then sure, you have some problems. In that case, that lack of availability combined with the relatively high price (where even a $10 DVD can be a month's wages or more) is going to create the need for piracy.

Piracy has always and WILL always exist, but it can be circumvented from the masses if a better, higher quality, reliable, economical alternative is available. Blacklisting will NOT work - pirates will get around it. And the negatives of such a system far outweigh any positives.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. In a weird way, the issue isn't piracy in and of itself. Any media company doesn't mind some piracy; it acts as a viral form of marketing. The problem is when a) there's too much of it, and b) when it hits the smaller companies. The problem is how to occasionally slap some of the bigger pirates down and allow the smaller companies to make a profit.

That's the problem....

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

no offense, but it seems you have absolutely no clue of the underlying technology. you seem to be desperate to defend this for the sake of IP and meanwhile even with your choice of words you demonstrate that you have not even an idea how this works *today*. people like you are very dangerous in positions of power. sadly many politicians are exactly like you.

Zealots like you that merely want to "stick it to The Man" are even worse. I'm not interested in this for the sake of the Big Corps; I'm worried about the smaller production companies and independent artists. The Big Corps will always survive no matter what; they can survive a few million units being copied illegally and even use that in their marketing campaigns. On the other hand, the one-man shops and smaller production companies need to sell every copy that they can in order to just be able to hang on, and piracy is a very definite threat to their existence. Enjoy your vanilla movies when artists realize that they have no incentive to create...

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

Robin, you're far too trusting. Fibbers will take this law, mix it with the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act, and decide that any special agent can shut down a site if he states he has "reason for suspicion" of suspicious activity.

And the problem is in the creation of a way in which the internet could just be turned off, shut down, gone. That should frighten anyone who believes in individual liberty.

 

[Corny]

Zealots like you that merely want to "stick it to The Man" are even worse.

If standing up for basic democratic rights and freedom suddenly is being "zealous" than I have no problem being one.

I'm not interested in this for the sake of the Big Corps;

Well but you are so strongly for laws that are basically ONLY being lobbied by the big media corps?

I'm worried about the smaller production companies and independent artists.

And if you have followed that independent artists scene you will have noticed that many of them experimented with one or the other new way of distributing their content - and quite successfully so. Something that the big corps (RIAA) are afraid of.

Again .. any kind of censorship is NOT a cure for other problems. It is equally as silly as the "stop child porn through blacklists" debate. This doesn't stop a single child from being abused. But it introduces a censorship framework.

By the way .. it is really nice to see how you complete ignored the other ways of communication that "still" are uncensored. So I take it you don't want your snail mail and e-mail to be checked and monitored? Or did you just chose to ignore this part of the discussion?

 

[Kulindahr]

I got this today from Demand Progress:

Bad news first: Yesterday afternoon the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the new Internet Blacklist Bill -- the PROTECT IP ACT.

The good news: Within minutes, Demand Progress ally Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed what's known as a "hold" on the bill, buying us some time and drawing attention to our cause.

PROTECT IP would let the government force Internet service providers, search engines, and other “information location tools” to block users’ access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement — creating a China-like censorship regime here in the United States.

Gotta be proud of Oregon's Wyden. I haven't been able to find out what kind of hold he used, but I'm hoping it's one that keeps the bill dead until a majority will vote to bring it up.

Meanwhile, Yahoo, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, and Net Coalition have joined Google in opposing this loudly.

We should be contacting our Senators, and Microsoft, too, to join the others in opposition.

 

[vforvendetta]

I see a lot of discussion that is more 'meat' than bone here - the core of the issue is that this law would not only be ultimately ineffective but has a massive potential for abuse. We understand that people deserve a reward for their hard work, but you can't stop piracy by blocking domains; all you end up doing is giving big brother another tool to limit our freedoms with.

 

[hotatlboi]

This bill does not, as far as I can tell, challenge or change current Fair Use law.

That is correct, because as I tried to explain, the situations that this proposes banning are not "fair use" they are "no use".

Fair use covers authorized uses of a copyrighted work. If I link to a site that contains infrining material, that is not a performance of ANY of the copyrighted work, fair or otherwise.

Specifics?

I tried to explain (and tried again above) it seems you did not comprehend it though.